Views » July 6, 2005

What Jimmy Taught Us

Email this article to a friend

your email

your name

recipient(s) email (comma separated)

message

captcha

This issue honors James Weinstein, the founding editor and publisher of In These Times. With testimonies from 28 family members, friendsand colleagues we remember the man who through his books and this magazine sought to point progressive Americans to political strategies that work.

I first met Jimmy at an annual convention of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) in the late ’70s. He was one of the leaders of a group of us, mostly from the Midwest, who thought DSA should be more electorally focused and challenge the Democratic establishment by running openly democratic socialist candidates in party primaries. On the other side were those, mostly from New York and Washington and led by Michael Harrington, who, wary of alienating liberal Democrats and labor leaders, sought to gain political influence through coalitions.

History has vindicated Jimmy. Lacking pressure from an organized populist left, the Democratic Party gradually began to morph into Republican lite.

Jimmy understood three things that too often have eluded others.

If American progressives want to make fundamental change rather than noise, they must overcome their ghettoization into single-issue enclaves and unite around inclusive goals, such as universal health care. Jimmy put it this way in The Long Detour, “How to unite people across lines of parochial interest and in favor of the general interest is what we will have to teach ourselves.”

Political agitation that is not connected to a broader electoral strategy becomes nothing more than glorified legislative lobbying–and lobbying unsupported by tangible political power is as effective as herding cats.

Because of institutional barriers, third party political efforts in the United States have never succeeded, which means the Democratic Party is the only viable vehicle for electoral action.

He elaborates on all of this in The Long Detour, the last lines of which are: “Of course, it’s easy to put this on paper, but not so easy to test the theory in action. That next step is up to you.”

Three articles in this issue explore efforts to take “that next step.” In the “House Call” column, Rep. Lynn Woolsey (R-Calif.), the co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, discusses the plans of the largest Democratic caucus in the House. Matt Singer reports how Montana Democrats who effectively organized around a populist platform are ascendant in a state that gave a 20-point margin of victory to George W. Bush. Singer also writes about the newly formed Progressive Legislators Action Network, whose mission is to “change the political landscape in the United States by focusing on attainable and progressive state level actions.” Finally, Christopher Hayes and Rick Perlstein, two young writers whose work Jimmy championed, discuss how Democrats could improve their electoral fortunes by once again standing for something. (Webmaster note: These articles will be available online next week. 4/6/05)

Over the years, Jimmy taught me many things. One lesson I am still trying to learn is how to be an effective “beggar”–that is, how to best ask In These Times readers for the donations that the magazine relies on to publish. Many of you know that all journals of opinion, both left and right, depend on outside financial support to make up the deficit between operating costs and subscription income, and that In These Times’ ability to publish depends on contributions from readers who give above and beyond the cost of their subscription. Your support is absolutely crucial as we enter a new era. Please read our appeal.

Jimmy founded In These Times to help build a society that elevates human needs over corporate profit. The staff here believe that In These Times has never been more relevant to the struggle to build authentic democracy. We hear from readers that they believe so too. We are damn proud of the magazine we put out; proud to continue Jimmy’s legacy and take “that next step.”

My God -
Ammonia D, are you trapped in New Orleans?
Help is on the way, first we had to knock out the fascists.
While I'm here, some Bibliomancy:
socialism (noun) 1. A social system in which the producers possess both political power and the means of producing and distributing goods.
from SOCIUS, companion, partner
communism (noun) 1. A social system characterized by the absence of classes and by common ownership of the means of production and subsistence. from COMMUN, common
fascism (noun) 1. A philosophy or system of government that advocates or exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership... from FASCIS, bundle
liberal (adj.) 1. Having, expressing, or following social or political views or policies that favor non-revolutionary progress and reform. 2. Having, expressing or following views or policies that favor the freedom of individuals to act and express themselves in a manner of their own choosing. 8. (obsolete) a. Permissible or appropriate for a free man. b. Unrestrained. from LIBER, free. LIBER+, book
Rooted in the quality of one who reads.Posted by ishtarsunstar on 2005-09-05 08:09:36

good another commie prick dead- let me know when Kennedy schumer(that NY scumbag) and boxer and feinstien die . Maybe we can have a liberal-socilaist free country again someday. I wish all you commie scumbags would die.
Posted by deadcommie is goodcommie on July 9, 2005 at 8:10 PM
What a cocksucking insensitive piece of shit you are. I could spew on here how much I wish to see the brains (what little there are of them) of that asshole GW, but I won't. Fuck you , get colon cance and die, fucking worthless asshole.Posted by Ammonia D on 2005-08-31 23:49:52

How strange that a link to a 16 month old Kurt Vonnegut article led me to death notice of James Weinstein. IN THESE TIMES must carry on.
Send money.Posted by ishtarsunstar on 2005-08-09 08:41:17

The bottom line is that serious liberal print like ITT needs financial support, and it ain't gonna come from Michael Hardesty.Posted by Lefty on 2005-07-12 09:55:51

BTW angelo, I travel under the premise that there are only 2 kinds of conservatives: 1) idiots, and 2) crooks.Posted by Lefty on 2005-07-12 09:52:16

Angelo,
Michael Hardesty, aka Martin, Steverino, Mikey, Peter, Jack Barnes, etc., etc., is a paid conservative TROLL who posts under numerous names (including hijacking other posters' screen names), and has conversations with himself in order to disrupt liberal discourse. JUST IGNORE HIM.
Do a Google search for Michael Hardesty. You'll find that he does the same thing on other liberal message boards. He's on Tom Delay's payroll.Posted by Lefty on 2005-07-12 09:49:58

Angelo, you're quite the wannabe thug, aren't you ? In person your a sissy pants of sissy pants.
I have already made attempts to enlighten you with
brief arguments backed by references.
Now it is up to you to get off your fat, lazy
ass and do the homework.
People are producers before they are consumers,
read the works on Keynes that I cited.
Rand was not an Austrian economist, she was
a novelist and philosopher with a tremendous
interest in economics, indeed Atlas Shrugged is
a paen to economics but you need to read it,
it is not my job to enlighten you, you need
to enlighten yourself and I have been kind
enough to suggest ways to do this.
It doesn't matter if the Austrians are a
minority school but if they are correct and
again YOU have to read their works if you
want to find out. I'm not here to save you
or be your big brother or brother's keeper.
Now close the big mouth in overdrive and open
the mind currently stuck in neutral.
Do not waste my time with anymore of your
juvenile communications and yes, you have been
nasty & insulting but you are just one of many
jerks whose stinky butts I have kicked on this
board.
Could yo' mama even LOCATE yo' papa ?Posted by Martin on 2005-07-12 08:50:20

Martin:
Again. You cannot resist using pejoritive zingers can you? Let's get down to brass tacks: Reisman and Rand both belong to a minority viewpoint namely, the Austrian School of economic thought. While Ayn Rand's works are highly romantic IMHO they no more have any revelance to economic thought than Wuthering Heights has to getting laid.
While you may think that Keynes has been "disproven" the present economy would indicate otherwise. Most people are consumers, and not savers-in a way supply siders agree with that premise, hence this adminstrations focus on tax cuts for the wealthy.
As to my indignation; if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. If you don't like the rhetoric that the "left" espouses-well, buck up. The conservative right hasn't exactly been nice and polite either. Remember, you used the pejoratives, not me. I don't have to call names to point out the weaknesses in a idea or get personal in order to show errors in thinking. Now if you wish we can have a discussion on ideas and maybe you might be able to enlighten me (doubt it)
on the other hand, if you want to play the dozens, i'll make you run home to yo mama. Your choice.Posted by Angelo on 2005-07-12 04:39:24

I'm familiar with all of the above
classics that you reference but you
might benefit from the Reisman book
which combines the best insights of
the classics, including a reworking
of the exploitation thesis, with Austrian
economics.
Keynesian theory was disproved long ago,
see The Failure of The New Economics
and Critics of Keynesian Economics by
Henry Hazlitt. Von Mises shredded Keynes
in Human Action (1949) and Murray Rothbard
did the same in his 2 vol Man, Economy and
State (1962).
Smith is a far better economist than a moral
philosopher, he is nothing in that area compared
to Ayn Rand, see her work Atlas Shrugged.
My last sentence is true, you had the gall
to only complain about the rude rightist rants
and I agree those are bad but far from the only
bad rants on this site.
The US system will evolve out of the semi-fascist
mixed economy into pure laissez-faire.
We have already tried the social democratic
variations and they have failed.
I'm not an admirer of supply side economics
but the only reason they came to power is the
complete collapse of the Keynesian Paradigm
25-30 years ago.
Next lightweight, please.
I never wrote that Smith was the end all of all
economics.
Can't you even read straight ?
Don't worry about the mirror, do something
about your monumental ignorance.Posted by Martin on 2005-07-11 17:21:11

Martin:
You had me there until you came out of your face with that last crack.
My indignation is far from selective, had you read the post c-a-r-e-f-u-l-l-y you would have noticed that I also suggested that you read "The Theory of Moral Sentiments" along with "Wealth of Nations" because even Adam Smith understood that capitalism needed some sort of moral grounding;you see, Adam Smith was not an economist, he was a moral philosopher.
"Wealth" is not the only treatise on economics-I would suggest "Principles of Political Economy" by John Stuart Mill which discusses the function of government in the progress of democracy. By the way, JSM was a liberal utilitarian who published the book in 1848.
There is also "The Principles of Political Economy and Taxation" published in 1817 by David Ricardo which also explores further the concept of the political economy which Adam Smith only covers the surface of. Lastly, there is "Progress and Poverty" written by Henry George in 1880 where he discusses in depth why there is persistent poverty in otherwise affluent societies.
Adam Smith is not the be all and end all of ecomomic thought; and I have yet to see Supply side thought disprove Keynesian theory. Richard is not advocating overthrowing capitalism, rather he is advocating making the institutions within it more resposive to the people through government. I said that capitalism would evolve, as all systems do, and that the U.S. style would be forced to do so as well. Anyone who does not see this happening I would accuse of being ignorant.
So I would check a mirror if I were you before you call someone "ignorant"Posted by Angelo on 2005-07-11 16:23:55

Adam Smith was a total believer in free,
international trade and was not at all
as Richard described. He repudiated protectionism
root and branch and advocated total globalization
as to both people and money.
He believed in open borders and was an advocate
of benevolent self-interest.
The rich pay an enormous amount in taxes
and so do many of us in the middle class.
One great value of George Reisman's work titled
Capitalism is its integration of Smith's classical
economics with Austrian economics.
Every thing that Richard says about Smith and
capitalism is in error. But check out the
Reisman book, read Smith too in tandem with
Reisman.
Fascism and communism are identical in their
statist-collectivist premises. The fascists
want to regulate and control everything exactly
like our liberals while the Communists now
agree with that too because they realize that
nationalization is a proven failure.
As far as only the Right setting the bad tone,
please spare us your selective indignation,
Angelo. You obviously haven't read many of
the leftist postings on this board if you
believe the ignorant crap that you spout.Posted by Martin on 2005-07-11 15:29:32

Excellent article by Joel Bleifuss in spite of the venomous posters who are unable to write or express themselves without insults.
Unfortunately, we have devolved into a so-called dialogue and separated into categories of either/or, black or white, which amount to the name-calling which is all too prevalent in the world of cyberspace. Name-calling simply covers up for their crass ignorance and inability to engage in an intelligent discussion on anything.
I'm sure that anyone who has bothered to open a book on economics must have a basic understanding of Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations.
I know of no country which is free of socialistic policies completely, including our own. To suggest that every economic policy must genuflect at the feet of a capitalistic, profit-oriented system one would presume that they also support plutocracies and oligarchies which always put their self-interests above all.
Adam Smith simply believed that the wealth, goods and services produced in one's own country should be consumed and shared within one's own country. He did not mean exploit the work force, pay paltry wages and once you’ve used the sweat and blood of the workers, throw them out on the street. Had it not been for strong unions who stood up for the average worker, pension plans, health benefits, decent living wages and laws against child exploitation in the workplace would never have seen the light of day.
The Bush administration and his corporate thralls are working hard, yes, “working real hard” to turn back the clock to those early 20th Century “halcyon” days when worker rights were nil.
The current policies of the Bush government consistently favor the wealthiest elite, exempting many from paying a single dime in taxes, which, by the way, are among the lowest in any industrialized country, yet the ever-greedy capitalists demand more.
Departing and abandoning workplace and health regulations and laws in our own country have led to increased outsourcing of jobs overseas where, even where there are worker protection laws on the books, they are seldom enforced while greedy profiteers stash their monetary gains in tax shelter havens and in offshore banks with phony company names.
Those are just a few of the "moral values" celebrated and practiced by the new GOP power-crazed, corrupt corporate czars who would sell their own mother or sacrifice their own offspring if they thought they could make an extra buck.
And that's exactly why it's so easy for them to do the same to our country. Their unapologetic greed has no allegiance or patriotism to any country nor any boundaries which they will not exceed to slake their insatiable appetites for personal wealth.
No wonder they eye so covetously the riches and resources of other countries whose government leaders are equally as eager to exploit their own people and no wonder that they so readily talk of waging war as if war is just another special purpose entity to increase their bottom line.Posted by Richard on 2005-07-10 08:26:36

Once again so called"conservatives" devolve to the usual bombast and perjoratives with sound and fury signifying nothing. To Jon: commnunisim does not equal fascism. Fascism is a different system;strong government backing of corporate capitalism.Don't confuse the economic system with the government system; they are not one and the same. Fascism is opposed to Communism, that is why "good" capitalists tried to overthrow the U.S. government in the 1930's (see references to General Smedley Darlington Butler) when their interests were threatened by Roosevelt's "New Deal" legislative agenda which they percieved as "socialist". Many famous people of the era were supportive of the NAZI government of Germany and openly admired other fascist governments. I would suggest that you re-read "Wealth of Nations" by Adam Smith, especially his metaphor regarding "the invisible hand" then read "The Theory of Moral Sentiments" also by Adam Smith. Then read any summary of Karl Marx; I suggest "Marx for Beginners" by Rius as the absolutely easiest to read(funny, too) so that you can come intellectually armed to critique any "commie" or speak intelligently on capitalism.
As economies evolve, so will capitalism. The problem is that the U.S. is trying to return to the capitalism of the early 20'th century and the rest of the world is moving beyond that (See Lester Thurow's books "Head To Head" and "Dangerous Currents") Under this administration's dogma, we will just spin our wheels without progress and find ourselves in a morass which will be difficult if not impossible to extricate ourselves for years to come.Posted by Angelo on 2005-07-10 02:38:42

yeah anybody that does not agree with your stupid commie crap is retarded right? some diversity and tolerance ya got there commie asshole. Hypocrite bastards all of you. When can we start the war on liberals and commies here in America? when the war comes ( and it will) I wish you all a painful death for what you have done to America.Posted by stop the commies on 2005-07-09 18:13:44

good another commie prick dead- let me know when Kennedy schumer(that NY scumbag) and boxer and feinstien die . Maybe we can have a liberal-socilaist free country again someday. I wish all you commie scumbags would die.Posted by deadcommie is goodcommie on 2005-07-09 18:10:47

It is totally killing me to see the above comments. We need a civil, respectful debate, not the self-righteous spewing of sided banther. If we keep seeing each other as being equally retarded, where the heck is that going to leave us? I've got to side with the left, though i don't know how socialism can be easily defined without being mistaken for one stereotype or another.
in other news,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1522983,00.htmlPosted by surge on 2005-07-08 21:22:11

you right wingers' slavish devotion to free market capitalism has left you more than blind and ignorant. it's reduced yout to mere pawns and suckers for a political class who love to do nothing more than rob you blind. and in response you'd likely turn to rob someone else to get yours back. which is the moral flaw with your ideology.
selfish, self-centered, corrupt idiocy.Posted by get-your-head-out-your-ass on 2005-07-08 11:43:01

Right on, Jon. These socialist kooks need
to read Capitalism by George Reisman.
mikey has a severe case of jock itch
today so just ignore him.Posted by Martin on 2005-07-08 11:29:44

you're obviously retarded.Posted by mike on 2005-07-08 10:45:03

Socialism is NOT democracy. It is fascism. By definition a people can not be "free" and be socialist or marxist.
Socialism has destroyed countless economies by removing all incentive. It makes me think you are just an anarchist looking to reduce America to the level of Cuba.
Don't be afraid to read some economic books- you might learn something!!!Posted by Jon on 2005-07-08 06:09:00